Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender explores why men have been more likely than women to be appointed to cabinet, why gendered patterns of appointment vary cross-nationally, and why, over time, women’s inclusion in cabinets has grown significantly. The book is innovative in conceiving of cabinet formation as a gendered process governed by rules that empower and constrain presidents and prime ministers as selectors of cabinet ministers, and rules that prescribe, prohibit, and permit a range of criteria (experiential, affiliational, and representational) that qualify individuals for inclusion in cabinet. Focusing on seven country cases (Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States) using three data sets—elite interviews, media data, and autobiographies—the book reveals the complex sets of rules governing cabinet formation in each country and demonstrates their gendered effects. The book shows how different types of rules empower and constrain selectors, and how these rules interact to create different opportunities and obstacles for women’s cabinet inclusion. The findings demonstrate how institutional change emerges from a complex iterative process through which political actors interpret and exploit ambiguity in rules to deviate from past practices of appointing mostly male cabinets. These selectors help to develop new rules about women’s inclusion, which constrain future leaders in assembling their cabinet. The authors coin the term “concrete floor” to capture the process by which minimum levels for women’s cabinet inclusion are established and become locked in over time, explaining how competing rules for cabinet appointments, changing norms, and women’s mobilization in political parties shape outcomes.

No abstract

This article reviews a selected range of comparative political research on women's movements, a subfield of political science whose recent proliferation now positions it at the leading edge of women and politics scholarship. Recognizing that "women" as a category of research is of necessity heterogeneous and informed by differences of race, class, ethnicity, nationality, generation, and religion, the article argues that this complex intersectionality need not mean that women's movements are beyond the scope of comparative political research. Rather, as the research focus of women and politics scholars has become increasingly carefully specified, general patterns are evident in the research that should serve to advance the comparative study of women's movements and comparative political research more generally. The article focuses on definitional challenges and the limitations of conflating "women's movements", "feminist movements", and "women in social movements", and discusses four major research arenas within which cross-national commonalities among women's movements are evidenced. These include the relationship between women's movements and political parties; "double militancy" as a potentially distinctive collective identity problem for women's movement activists; the extent to which political opportunities for women's movements are (or can be) gendered; and the relationship between women's movements and the state. The article concludes with suggestions for future research in the subfields of comparative women's movements and comparative politics.

Is there a common language of gender in political science research? One might expect the answer to be no, given the wide range of ways in which scholars employ the concept of gender in empirical and theoretical research. I maintain, however, that a common language of gender does exist and that we must articulate it in explicit terms in order to advance the way we build knowledge in this field. In this contribution to “Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics,” I suggest two ways in which to employ “gender” as part of a common language that the subfield can employ for the purposes of empirical political research: gender as a category and as a process.

Abstract.The concept of “critical mass,” drawn from physics and organizational behaviour literatures, has been employed by women and politics scholars as a potential theoretical underpinning for explaining and predicting women's substantive representation in national legislatures. This article examines two number-based theories of women's substantive representation—critical mass theory and sex-ratio proportional theory—and assesses their theoretical utility. It then proposes the alternative of focusing on the impact of newness, or a substantial increase in the number and proportion of women elected for the first time, on women's substantive representation. The article identifies research design issues and discusses the intersection of “newness” and “numbers” for evaluating women's substantive representation in parliaments. Offering a range of hypotheses for testing, it concludes by identifying an irony for critical mass research and by underscoring the necessarily gendered nature of the newness-numbers intersection.Résumé.Le concept de “ masse critique ” issu de la physique et de la recherche en comportement organisationnel a été utilisé par les spécialistes du rapport femmes et politique comme modèle théorique possible pour expliquer et prédire la représentation substantive des femmes dans les législatures nationales. Cet article se propose d'examiner deux théories quantitatives de la représentation substantive des femmes et d'évaluer leur utilité théorique : 1. la théorie de la masse critique et 2. la théorie proportionnelle du sex ratio, et propose un autre modèle basé sur l'incidence de la nouveauté, ou une augmentation sensible dans le nombre et les proportions de femmes élues pour la première fois, sur la représentation substantive des femmes. L'article se penche sur les questions de méthodologie de la recherche et analyse l'intérêt du point d'intersection “ nouveauté ” et “ chiffres ” pour l'évaluation de la représentation substantive des femmes dans les parlements. À partir d'un choix d'hypothèses permettant d'évaluer ces modèles, l'article conclut en identifiant une ironie en ce qui concerne la recherche de masse critique et en soulignant le fait que la nature du point d'intersection nouveauté/chiffres est forcément marquée par le genre.